the working-class as a subject in conceptual history · the working-class as a subject in...

ECPR 2016 Panel ‘The People and the Masses in Conceptual History’

1

The working-class as a subject in conceptual history

Samuel Hayat, CNRS

[First draft, please do not circulate. Comments welcome! [email protected]]

As several of the papers in this panel show, the concept of “people” is a crucial (and

contested) concept of political language, and it was especially the case in the 19th

century. As

democratic ideas and popular sovereignty gained momentum, discourses of legitimation

became more and more reliant on the concept of “the people”, whether to justify political

obligation or on the contrary to subvert existing powers. But as we know, “the people” is a

deeply polysemous term – most notably, it can designate a nation unified by a common

culture, the active citizenry in a polity, or it can have a clearer social connotation and signify

the poor, the working-class. Each of these understandings of the concept of “the people” led

to a massive intellectual production. If we consider the people as “the working-class”, for

example, its study played a major role in the development of sociology and political economy,

from the first national surveys in most industrialized countries in the early 19th

century to the

works of Karl Marx.

Most scholars would easily recognize that “the people” is a polysemous, contested and

highly studied concept – as many other central political concepts. But contrary to other

political concepts (democracy, liberty, equality…), “the people” refers to existing persons that

have some kind of agency1. To use a Saussurian language, the signifier “people” refers to a

signified that to a certain extent can act and speak on its own behalf – more precisely, alleged

members of the signified group can claim to act as representatives, and in the case of “the

people” that means everyone (Bourdieu 1991; Saward 2010). Maybe as a result, the

development of the concept of “the people” in political language went along with the ever-

increasing activity of the people as political subjects. Since the end of the 18th

century, the

people have become both objects and subjects of conceptual history – or, better, reflexive

subjects.

1 Interestingly enough, no concept in (Ball, Farr, and Hanson 1989) exhibits this feature among the 14 selected.

We can also notice that “people” is absent from (Williams 1976), whereas “class” is present.


2

The aim of this paper is to develop a few ideas about the conceptual history of the

people (both as subject and object), by focusing on one aspect of “the people”: its

interpretation as “the working-class”. I will try to delineate what a conceptual history of the

working-class could be, when it is understood as the history of the working-class as a

reflexive concept – i.e. as a concept used by workers themselves to designate their own

existence as members of a larger collective subject. While it is based on a quite simple

principle, the methods of such of project are not self-evident. Indeed, there is a general

tendency in conceptual history, political theory and the history of ideas to focus on the work

of individual authors, often professional thinkers – maybe because they were more articulate

and more influential, at least in the field of political philosophy. But while this choice makes

sense for the conceptual history of early modern times and its République des lettres and

Enlightement period (no surprise it is the period privileged by Skinner, Pocock, Koselleck and

many others), its relevance for later times is more dubious. Studying conceptual change

during the age of the masses, where an ever increasing number of people can not only read,

but write, and organize in collectives who produce texts collectively, requires another

methodology. From the 19th

century onwards, thanks to technical changes and the spread of

literacy, intellectuals can no longer be seen as the primary actors of conceptual change:

collective entities are. But we lack the proper tools to study this: how can a social entity such

as the working-class speak, develop a specific language and impose it in the public sphere?

My main point is to describe how 19th

century French workers equipped themselves with

ways to exist as a collective subject, through the creation of collective organisations and

media that are authorised (or that authorise themselves) to speak on their behalf, thus

influencing the political vocabulary of their time. I will show that from the 19th

century

onwards, the working-class was constructed as an entity through discourses that both shaped

the class itself and the larger political language: through the process of its self-creation, the

working-class became a central actor as a class of conceptual history. I will do that by

addressing two questions: 1) How did the working-class become a subject of conceptual

history ? 2) What influence did it have on the political vocabulary of its times?


3

I. How did the working-class become a subject of conceptual history?

This first question raises many epistemological and methodological issues: what is a

collective subject, how it can act and what it means to be a subject of conceptual history. The

latter question may be the easiest one, and guide us for the former. A subject of conceptual

history can be defined as an actor of conceptual change, i.e. a subject whose discourse and

actions (and discourse about actions) engage in the transformation of the political language.

Conceptual change has been the focus of some works in the theory of conceptual history. To

take but one definition, we can turn to James Farr’s introduction to the famous edited volume

Political Innovation and Conceptual Change:

“Conceptual change might be understood as one rather strikingly imaginative outcome

of the process of political actors attempting to solve the problems they encounter as

they try to understand and change the world around them. To see this we may draw

attention to an obvious feature of language intimated above: concepts are never held or

used in isolation, but in constellations which make up entire schemes or belief

systems. These schemes or belief systems are theories and those who hold them are

theorists – of varying degree of articulation and sophistication, of course. Theories, in

turn, may be understood as intentional and rational attempts to solve practical and

speculative problems generated in or between political beliefs, actions, and practices.”

(Farr 1989, 33)

What matters in this definition is that conceptual change, as Farr understands it, is not the

result of purely speculative activities: it is always linked with an activity of political problem-

solving (“political” meaning here both that it is accomplished in a field saturated with power

relations and that it engages the life of the polity) and it always implies some kind of

constellations of concepts, belief systems, i.e ideologies (Rosanvallon 1986; Freeden 1996).

Sure, in Farr’s mind, the actors are theorists, implicitly defined as individuals engaged into

this activity of political problem-solving. But it does not have to be that way: we can imagine

that collective entities face some kind of common political problems and act as collective

theorists – it can even be argued that these problems play an important part of the very

creation of these entities. Getting back to our main question, we can address it from a

pragmatic point of view: not asking ourselves what the working-class is and how we can

recognize its actions, but more directly examining what kind of problems workers had to face

in the 19th

century and what kind of discourses tried to solve these problems.


4

Discourses made on behalf of the working-class, delineating what kind of problems

and challenges workers collectively faced, were largely absent from French political thought

before the 19th

century. The reason is that the idea of a “working class” was uncommon under

the Ancien Régime: industrial work was then organised through a complex corporative

system, in which trades had a legal existence and pretty much defined the identity of the

workers. There was not much place for individual or collective discussion about labour or the

working-class in general. As William Sewell puts it, “both masters and workers were

subjected to the collective discipline of the corporation, which regulated everyone and

everything in the trade” (Sewell 1986, 54). Trade organisation produced a distinction between

workers of different trades that was sometimes more important than the differences inside a

given trade between workers of different statuses – journeymen and masters.

The Revolution changed all that. In 1791, the Le Chapelier law and the d’Allarde

decree destroyed the whole trade system: corporations were dissolved and any form of trade

organisation became illegal (Kaplan and Minard 2004). As a result, the economy, previously

controlled rigidly by hierarchical corporations with fixed rules suddenly became disorganised.

All trades became free and the traditional ways of harmonising wages and controlling the job

market in each trade disappeared. This led to technical, juridical and economic

transformations, with an admittedly timid mechanisation of the means of production, and to

the emergence of a large and protean movement aiming at a renewed control over the

economy by the workers (Moss 1976; Jarrige 2006; Gribaudi 2014). But they could not just

use the same means as before the Revolution. They had to reflect collectively upon their

organisations and the way they could construct devices to control their economic activity.

During the first decades of the 19th

century, organisations emerged from the

paradoxical situation of induced reflexivity created by the Revolution: a collective will on the

part of the workers to continue regulating the economy, but a new legal and conceptual

framework in which this regulation did not naturally fall into place (Cottereau 1986;

Cottereau 2002). This is the problem that the workers wished to address, leading them to

become actors in the field of conceptual change, through the creation of organizations

(associations, mutual aid societies, prud’hommes, newspapers...) aiming to act and to speak

on behalf of the working-class as a class.

However, an important qualification must be made here: it would be an impossible

task to examine all the discourses produced by workers to face this new situation; and it


5

would be deeply misleading, since conceptual change is but one quite limited dimension or

impact of the activity (even if we limit ourselves to discursive activity) of these workers. Not

all discourses participate to conceptual change on an equal basis. So what criteria can we use

to discriminate among the vast written production of organised workers? According to

Quentin Skinner, conceptual innovation, at least in political matters, generally has to do with

justification:

“The task of the innovating ideologist is a hard but an obvious one. His concern, by

definition, is to legitimate a new range of social actions which, in terms of the existing

ways of applying the moral vocabulary prevailing in his society, are currently regarded

as in some way untoward or illegitimate. His aim must therefore be to show that a

number of existing and favorable evaluative-descriptive terms can somehow be

applied to his apparently untoward actions. If he can somehow perform this trick, he

can thereby hope to argue that the condemnatory descriptions which are otherwise

liable to be applied to his actions can in consequence be discounted” (Skinner 1974,

294)

Conceptual change is more likely to happen when actors facing a problem do not only address

it, but also explicitly and publicly justify the legitimacy of their solution, in terms acceptable

by the general public. This idea is at the core of William Sewell’s analysis on the emergence

of the rhetoric of class in France: after the revolution of 1830, it was a way for workers to

reformulate their corporative language and claim rights, especially the right to association, of

which they were deprived by the new regime (Sewell 1980). They reframed their struggle for

economic control in a language of class that was formed along the lines of the liberal

language of 1789 that became hegemonic after the 1830 revolution.

As a result, we can give a provisional answer to our first question, “how did the

working-class become a subject of conceptual history?” It happened when, facing the problem

of the loss of any power on the production process and the liberalization of the economy that

ensued, some workers created organizations through which they reformulated their previous

claims through the use of a liberal vocabulary, thus leading to a process of conceptual change

that can be ascribed to the working-class that became created as a class in the process.


6

II. What influence did the 19th

century French working-class have on the political

vocabulary of its times?

Building on what precedes we can now answer this second question. Working-class

organisations, i.e. workers organisations created to address the economic problems faced by

all industrial workers and publicly formulate solutions, tried to intervene in the public debates

on different occasions through the 19th

century. In the process, they influenced the political

vocabulary of their time. I will focus here on two concepts directly impacted by working-class

organisations in the 19th

century: association and democracy (Riot-Sarcey 2016).

Association

Workers organisations pretending to speak on behalf of the whole class emerged in

France at the very beginning of the July Monarchy (1830-1834). During these years, the term

“proletarian” acquired a new meaning for a growing number of workers: a class identity,

intrinsically linked to their status as producers, one which transcended the boundaries of

particular trades, and was marked by its exploitation by the bourgeoisie. This affected it to the

point that, “from 1840 the distinctiveness of the ‘working class’ was a received truth in all

worker circles” (Judt 1986, 62). Workers started to restructure their action in ways which

transcended the barriers of trades, notably by establishing newspapers that were led and

written exclusively by workers (L'artisan, Le journal des ouvriers; and Le peuple, journal des

ouvriers, rédigé par eux-mêmes), and also by entering republican societies. For the first time,

a concept was formulated as a distinctive labour idea, anchored in both the corporative

tradition and in republican values, and inseparable from the workers’ will to organise and to

exert a control over the economy: the concept of association. This concept of association,

which “has a clearer political connotation, that of challenging the social order” (Gueslin 1987,

135) than the terms “corporation” or “organisation”, acquired the status of a “Messianic

formula” (Loubère 1959, 422) under the July regime. After 1830, several plans appeared to

promote the unification of the diverse workers’ associations. In 1833, a republican shoe-

maker, Zael Efrahem, first formulated most strongly the need for the trade associations to be

replaced by a workers' association unifying the different trades. In 1840, Agricol Perdiguier

published the Livre du compagnonnage in which he described the journeymen’s customs and

songs and advocated a union of their rival associations. And in 1843, drawing on these


7

projects, the “pariah” Flora Tristan published L’Union ouvrière, a vibrant call to working-

class unity2.

These works had some influence on the larger opposition movement to the regime,

showing a direct influence of workers on the political language. During the 1839-1841 and the

1847-1848 movements for electoral reform, freedom of association was a major motto, even if

there was no real consensus about the content and the extent of this principle (Baughman

1959; Gourvitch 1914; Robert 2010). In the long-run, it is difficult to assess the importance of

the working-class defence of the principle of association. Further research should document

the reference to workers’s associations in the debates surrounding the right to association at

the very end of the 19th

century in France, leading to the 1901 law authorizing associations.

What is for certain is that it was preceded by the abrogation of the Le Chapelier law in 1864

and the legalization of trade unions in 1884 – the path to the general right to association in

France was open by the struggle by workers for the right to associate.

However, the influence of this struggle for association on political language was very

visible on the shorter run, during the 1848 revolution, a second moment during which the

working-class movement had a major influence on political language (Gossez 1968). After the

successful insurrection of February 24th

1848, the new Provisional Government that came to

power was far from being socialist, even if it included a socialist thinker, Louis Blanc, and a

worker, Albert. However, facing popular unrest in the street, the Government had to announce

on the 25th

the “right to work” (droit au travail), i.e. the right for the unemployed to be given

a job by the State, and on the 28th

to set a representative assembly for workers, sitting at the

Luxembourg (the former Chamber of Peers). The vocabulary used for the former event was

revealing:

“The Provisional Government commits to guarantee the livelihood of workers through

their work. It commits to guarantee work to all citizens. It recognizes that workers

should associate to benefit from their work.” (Decree by the Provisional Government,

25 February 1848)

This decree was signed under the pressure of a workers’ demonstration, after a Fourierist,

Auguste Bijon de Lancy, deposed a petition to the Provisional Governement. In the petition,

the associative principle was not mentioned; this very radical addition by the Government

2 Efrahem, De l’association des ouvriers de tous les corps d’état, Paris, impr. de A. Mie, 1833..Agricol

Perdiguier, Le livre du compagnonage, Paris, l’auteur, 1840. Flora Tristan, Union ouvrière, Paris, Prévot, 1843.


8

shows how prevalent the motto of the association was among republicans. Even the very

moderate republican newspaper Le National, whose ideology was majority in the Provisional

Government and then in the National Assembly elected on April 23rd

, could claim that

“sooner or later workers will no longer be salaried and will be both workers and master. We

think that the association is the way that leads to this goal” (April 16th

) or that “association

should replace the wage system” (April 30th

). These radical stances would lose a lot of

momentum after invasion of the Assembly on May 15th

and even more so after the June

insurrection, which saw dozens of thousands of workers protest against the closing of the

National Workshops that employed unemployed workers in Paris – an insurrection whose

repression led to the massacre of thousands and the beginning of a reactionary process that

would culminate in the reinstatement of the Empire (Price 1975).

So during a brief period, workers – and among them, elected representatives that were

members of the Luxembourg Commission – really had the opportunity to influence political

language, the idea of association as a means to emancipation even becoming hegemonic

during a few months. This did not last, but after the Luxembourg Commission was dissolved

in May 1848, former delegates, especially members of the bureau of the Commission such as

its president, Pierre Vinçard, constituted the core of new endeavours to build a unified

working-class movement. In June, they formed a Société des Corporations réunies whose

manifesto claimed the necessity of an autonomous emancipation of the proletariat, and

launched a newspaper, Le Journal des travailleurs, which centralized news from the trades.

After 1848, these former delegates participated in almost every important working-class

project on the national scale, from the Banque du Peuple in 1848-49 to the Société de la

Presse du Travail in 1851. Some fostered the creation of new associations, organised

following a strongly democratic model. Consider for example the Clichy tailors: their

workshops were closed by the government in July, but only a few dozen workers (out of a

total of 1600) decided to create a new association, keeping the name Association fraternelle

des ouvriers tailleurs and settling on the faubourg Saint-Denis (Cochut 1851, 28–49). In this

association, all the persons in charge (the manager, the surveillance committee and a

“fraternal jury” supposed to solve disagreements) were directly elected by the biannual

general assembly of the workers. Far from being an exception, this democratic form of

organisation became widespread in the associations created in 1848-1849, most notably

thanks to the activity of former delegates of the Luxembourg Commission. They wrote a

template that could be used by any association and that was published on different formats –


9

often with modifications, preambles and commentaries – and triggered the publication of

several handbooks intended for workers who might want to create their own association

The democratic experience of 1848, transposed into the economic realm, gave birth to

socialist experiments in the form of democratically organised associations. During the Second

Empire, some former Luxembourg delegates (for example the typographers Georges Duchêne

and Louis Vasbenter) participated in the working-class milieu from which emerged the

Parisian section of the First International. So even after it lost its centrality, the idea of the

association remained constitutive of working-class organisations and was an integral part of

their vocabulary – influencing the larger conceptualisation of association in society, with

more or less success depending on the period.

Democracy

However, in 1848, working-class organisations introduced an even greater change in

conceptual history: they challenged the very concept of democracy by advocating for its

radicalization and the extension of its logics to a new domain, the workplace. I will not

develop here the first aspect, which revolves around the questions of participation,

representation and citizenship (Hayat 2015), and will instead focus on the latter, its extension,

as it seems to me of paramount importance to understand subsequent historical developments,

such as the creation of the Welfare State. It is well-know that Spring 1848 led to the political

emancipation of the male workers, i.e. universal male suffrage (Rosanvallon 2001). The

transformation of citizenship subsequent to this change had a profound impact on the way the

workers saw themselves, and thus on their conceptualisation of democracy.

To assess the extent of the effect of universal male suffrage on the representations

workers had of themselves, one has to remember that democracy, in 1848, did not only mean

the election of legislators who then could act however they pleased. Since our present

conception of democracy is almost purely electoral, we tend to forget what it entailed then.

But if we consider a male worker in early 1848, we can see that the revolution turned upside

down his day-to-day political experience. First, he had the right to vote for the sovereign

assembly. In 1848, that meant choosing any list of names he wanted; he was not constrained

by parties or lists of candidates. If he lived in a big city, he also could participate in club

meetings in which potential candidates presented themselves. In Paris, 100 000 people


10

regularly attended club meetings (Amann 1975). Of course, the board of the club was elected,

so workers could participate in the election of club representatives. Workers also became

members of the National Guard, experiencing equality with their neighbours, and they could

vote for their officers at different levels (in at least three different elections in April 1848)

(Hincker 2007). If a worker was in need and decided to enrol in National workshops, as tens

of thousands of workers did, he also could vote for his officers there (MacKay 1933).

Workers who were members of an organised trade, a corps d’état, were also invited to vote

for their representatives at the Luxembourg Commission. To sum up, in 1848, workers went

from exclusion from all forms of collective decision to a permanent and multidimensional

electoral activity. Equality in decisions, i.e. popular sovereignty, was no longer just a value: it

had become an actual experience (Riot-Sarcey 2002). This constituted the new framework

through which workers thought of themselves and their relations to society: they were

political actors, members of the sovereign body.

In that regard, the establishment of democratic associations of production was part of a

larger project of reframing democracy itself, a project that can be described as working-class

socialist democracy. Once again, the former Luxembourg delegates were the first to promote

such a conception of democracy. In the manifesto of the Société des corporations réunies,

published in early June 1848, they claimed that the associative project was part of the

realisation of the sovereignty of the people in the economic sphere. The argumentation in this

manifesto constituted a landmark in the history of the labour movement:

“The State, that is the persons who govern the people, exists only thanks to the

taxes paid by everyone, taxes that obviously come from the producer. (…) So the

State is the people, the producer. That being said, why would the people would

wait, maybe in vain, for a social organisation that could at most refund it with a

small part of what it gives voluntarily every day to the one who exploits it? No

more intermediary between the people and the government! May the people,

organise itself without waiting any longer! Isn’t it sovereign, the producer of all

wealth? (…) Come, proletarian, come and sign your emancipation!” (Journal des

Travailleurs, 8 June 1848)

Not only did the new regime imply that all men should be equal and thus there should be no

division between employees and bosses; it also meant, according to these workers, that the

capacity of the united working-class was unlimited. Hence the association of associations


11

could be considered as the twin in the economic realm of the democratic State in the political

one. Even more, its realisation would render the State itself useless.

The same idea could be found even more clearly in the texts by the Société de la Presse

du Travail, founded in February 1851, the last attempt to constitute a working-class unified

organization before the Second Empire. Its board was composed of workers of different

trades, and it explicitly aimed to renew trade corporations, but in a democratic manner. The

preamble to the manifesto of this association, published in its Almanach des Corporations

nouvelles, lengthily explained why it was necessary to rethink and renew corporatism. The

leaders of the Société conceived it as an organisation that should inherit the long tradition of

corporatism, through its different evolutions. But, as they explained, the revolution of 1848

had profoundly transformed this tradition:

“The political revolution of 1848, by giving to every man, independently of any

monetary condition, the right to elect and to be elected, gave back to every citizen

the free disposal of [all the revenue of taxes]. This great act has been

accomplished by universal suffrage. But from this great act follows another one.

Universal suffrage gave to all the taxpayers the disposal of the product of the

taxes, now we need a similar institution that makes all the workers participate in

the administration of the wealth they have produced. This institution (…) is the

Universal Association. The workers have understood that; and this is why, to the

idea of a pure resistance against the lowering of wages, they added the idea of

association aiming at the ownership of the means of production, association that

raises them to the condition of civil servants of the corporation, and that makes

progressively disappear all the distinctions of employees, bourgeois and

capitalists.”

In this text, the link was clearly established between political equality and economic equality

realised through the organisation of workers. The Societé aimed to translate democratic

equality and sovereignty into the economic sphere, and was itself organised on democratic

principles. This version of democracy was therefore inherently socialist. It entailed the

suppression of the frontier between the political (as the reign of the collective will) and the

economic (as the realm of the uncoordinated pursuit of individual interests): the workers were

sovereign as workers and their sovereignty was effected through the organisation of labour.

As such, only a centralised control of the economy by the workers themselves, now “civil


12

servants of the corporation”, could ensure the realisation of democracy with all its

consequences.

This endeavour to reformulate democracy in socialist terms never became hegemonic;

but it constituted the basis of what would become the common language of the labour

movement from the 1860’s onward, spreading to socialism, communism and syndicalism.

Even if nowadays these movements are largely on the decline, the idea that democracy should

have an economic aspect and is not compatible with exploitation or massive inequalities is

quite well-spread, whether among moral and political philosophers or in the larger public.

In this paper I tried to present a few starting points about a possible extension of the

domain of conceptual history to better fit some of the characteristics of the age of the masses.

Indeed, from the 19th

century onward, individual authors can no longer be said to have a

prominent role in conceptual change. New actors appeared: mass organisations, producing

texts as collective theorists. I focused on of the first collective organizations to appear as

actors in conceptual change: workers organisations. I tried to show how these organizations

played a central role in the conceptual history of 19th

century France, by focusing on two

concepts: association and democracy. In 1830-1834, in 1848, in 1871 and at the end of the

century in the newly formed trade-unions and socialist parties, workers developed

conceptions of association and democracy that would have a lasting influence on the political

vocabulary of their times. While it is always difficult to precisely assess such a role, this may

show the interest of considering collective actors such as working-class organisations in the

study of modern and contemporary conceptual history.


13

References

Amann, Peter H. 1975. Revolution and Mass Democracy: The Paris Club Movement in 1848.

Princeton, N.J: Princeton university press.

Ball, Terence, James Farr, and Russell L. Hanson, eds. 1989. Political Innovation and

Conceptual Change. Cambridge New York New Rochelle [etc.]: Cambridge

university press.

Baughman, John J. 1959. “The French Banquet Campaign of 1847-48.” The Journal of

Modern History 31 (1): 1–15.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited by John B Thompson.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Cochut, P. André. 1851. Les Associations ouvrières. Histoire et théorie des tentatives de

réorganisation industrielle opérées depuis la révolution de 1848. Paris: Bureau du

National.

Cottereau, Alain. 1986. “The distinctiveness of working-class cultures in France, 1848-1900.”

In Working-class formation: nineteenth-century patterns in Western Europe and the

United States, edited by Aristide R. Zolberg and Ira Katznelson, 111–54. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton university press.

———. 2002. “Droit et Bon Droit.” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 57 (6): 1521–57.

Farr, James. 1989. “Understanding Conceptual Change Politically.” In Political Innovation

and Conceptual Change, by James Farr, Terence Ball, and Russell L. Hanson, 24–49.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freeden, Michael. 1996. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Gossez, Rémi. 1968. Les ouvriers de Paris. 1 : L’Organisation, 1848-1851. Paris: Société

d’histoire de la Révolution de 1848.

Gourvitch, Alain. 1914. “Le Mouvement Pour La Réforme Électorale (1838-41).” La

Révolution de 1848, t.XI, 93-131, 185-211, 265-288, 345-359, 397-417 ; XII page37–

44, 95–115, 173–192, 256–271 ; XIII pages62–81.

Gribaudi, Maurizio. 2014. Paris ville ouvrière: une histoire occultée (1789-1848). Paris: La

Découverte.

Gueslin, André. 1987. L’Invention de l’économie sociale : le XIXe siècle français. Paris:

Économica.

Hayat, Samuel. 2015. “The Revolution of 1848 in the History of French Republicanism.”

History of Political Thought 36 (2): 331–53.

Hincker, Louis. 2007. Citoyens-combattants à Paris, 1848-1851. Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Presses

universitaires du Septentrion.

Jarrige, François. 2006. “Les ouvriers parisiens et la question des machines au début de la

monarchie de Juillet.” In La France des années 1830 et l’esprit de réforme : actes du

colloque de Rennes, 6-7 octobre 2005, 211–22. Rennes: Presses universitaires de

Rennes.

Judt, Tony. 1986. Marxism and the French left: studies in labour and politics in France 1830-

1981. Oxford: Clarendon press.

Kaplan, Steven Laurence, and Philippe Minard, eds. 2004. La France, malade du

corporatisme ? : XVIIIe-XXe siècles. Paris: Belin.

Loubère, Leo A. 1959. “The Intellectual Origins of French Jacobin Socialism.” International

Review of Social History 4 (3): 415–31. doi:10.1017/S0020859000001437.

MacKay, Donald Cope. 1933. The National Workshops, a Study in the French Revolution of

1848. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.


14

Moss, Bernard H. 1976. The Origins of the French Labor Movement, 1830-1914: The

Socialism of Skilled Workers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Price, Roger, ed. 1975. Revolution and reaction: 1848 and the Second French republic.

London New York: C. Helm Barnes and Noble.

Riot-Sarcey, Michèle. 2002. “De ‘l’universel’ suffrage à l’association, ou ‘l’utopie’ de 1848.”

In 1848 : actes du colloque international du cent cinquantenaire, tenu à l’Assemblée

nationale à Paris, les 23-25 février 1998, edited by Jean-Luc Mayaud, 47–57. Paris:

Creaphis.

———. 2016. Le procès de la liberté: une histoire souterraine du XIXe siècle en France.

Paris: La Découverte.

Robert, Vincent. 2010. Le temps des banquets : politique et symbolique d’une génération,

1818-1848. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.

Rosanvallon, Pierre. 1986. “Pour Une Histoire Conceptuelle Du Politique (Note de Travail).”

Revue de Synthèse, no. 1–2: 93–105.

———. 2001. Le sacre du citoyen : histoire du suffrage universel en France. Paris:

Gallimard.

Saward, Michael. 2010. The representative claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sewell, William Hamilton. 1980. Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor

from the Old Regime to 1848. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1986. “Artisans, factory workers, and the formation of the French working class,

1789-1848.” In Working-class formation: nineteenth-century patterns in Western

Europe and the United States, edited by Aristide R. Zolberg and Ira Katznelson, 45–

70. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university press.

Skinner, Quentin. 1974. “Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action.”

Political Theory 2 (3): 277–303.

Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York:

Oxford University Press.

the working-class as a subject in conceptual history · the working-class as a subject in...

Documents